Global Warming: A Theory that Predicts Nothing, Explains Everything

Nancy Thorner is a writer, cellist, and Tea Party activist based in suburban Chicago who writes regularly for Western Free Press, Illinois Review, and The Heartland Institute's Freedom Pub blog. Nancy is active in the following organizations: The Heartland Institute, Phyllis Schlafly Eagles, Illinois Family Institute, Family-Pac, Republican Assembly of Lake County, and the Women's Republican Club of Lake Forest/Lake Bluff.

Al Gore’s friends in the climate change debate use their “judgment” to make forecasts. Good scientists, however, use the scientific method for their work.

George Orwell more than 30 years ago, coined the term “doublethink” in his novel, 1984. “Doublethink” is still very much alive today in discussing and debating Climate Change.

From a featured slide at Hearthland Institute’s recent International Climate Change Conference 10:

Doublethink means holding two contradictory beliefs in mind simultaneously (cooling is warming) and accepting both as true. We thereby become unaware of any discrepancy between true and false.

Doublethink mostly stems from total belief in an ideology as in any kind of ISM, like Communism. The ISM holds the “truth”, as embedded in the language of climatism, the subject of a book by Steve Goreham, “The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism.”

Contrived language (C means CO2 can distort and corrupt our thinking, make us stupidly unaware of lies, and fail to question our leaders. Control the language and you control the people, and hence the society — which is the route to dystopia.

Following are examples of doublethink that are inherent in the Climate Change lexicon: The immediate intent is to deceive, but the ultimate aim is always to control (a featured slide at ICCC-10):

Carbon Dioxide is soot

Extremely likely is 95%

Climate is Weather

Denier is Liar

Skeptic is Septic

Social License is Green Approval

Mitigation is Prevention

The present time as a “pile of filth”?

Despite the doublethink inherent in climate change with its intent to deceive, such as when deniers are called liars, it is amazing that the American people ranked climate change dead last among eight other listed concerns in a recent Gallop poll . But will public opinion change in lieu of the Vatican’s recently released encyclical by Pope Francis in which the pope blames climate change on human activity and subsequently refers to the present time as a “pile of filth”?

This brash terminology seems to fly in the face of history and reason and more of less redefines the best of all possible times as a living hell-hole. Granted, many still live in squalor without electricity and even denied electricity, yet we live in luxury that even kings a few centuries ago could only dream about. One only needs to look at the filth and squalor in which previous generations lived to know that most people in the past would have given anything to be born now. How is it possible to promote fossil fuel as somehow evil, when it created and made possible the fantastic modern world we live in today?

Although it’s impossible to determine how the Pope’s encyclical will influence the attitude (concerns) of the American people over Climate Change, the Pope, performing much like a lobbyist, is urging prayers for passage of the UN Climate treaty, even telling his faithful “to ask God for a positive outcome” at the upcoming December Paris UN conference.

Heartland goes to Italy

In late April, the Heartland Institute sent a delegation to the Vatican “hoping to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate science: There is no global warming crisis!” Seven scientists and other experts gave speeches at a Heartland event held near the Vatican, raising doubts about various aspects of the scientific consensus on climate change, and further urging the pope not to take sides.

The conclusion reached by the Heartland delegation was that Pope Francis had already made up his mind on the question of global warming. A French doubter, Philippe de Larminat, after achieving a spot at the Pope’s climate summit, was told there were no spaces left for him. As de Larminat said, “They did not want to hear an off note.” Philippe de Larminat authored a book arguing that solar activity, not greenhouse gases, was driving global warming.

The U.N.’s role in climate change remains paramount as it continues to move full steam ahead with a major December international climate conference in Paris. At the December climate conference 196 countries will meet to sign an agreement to be adopted that will take the form of a protocol — a legal instrument or “an agreed outcome with legal force”– that will be applicable to all parties, and which will reflect ambitious outcomes that will have a real impact on tackling climate change.

Any U.N. agreement would not be grounded in sound science. Its established protocol would impose economic burdens greatly affecting living standards, not only on the American people, but on individuals whose nations are signed signatories to the protocol. Most certainly a U.N adopted protocol would be a slap in the face of the many renowned scientists who gathered recently at the The Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-10) in Washington, D.C. on June 11 and 12, who are in agreement that CO2 is not a pollutant, nor does it cause global warming. Fred Singer and Willie Soon, as noted in Article 2, predicted how a Little Ice Age could be on the horizon as a consequence of natural climate cycles and the influence of the sun on the climate, most certainly not CO2 induced!

Relevant questions not subject to review

The three questions noted below, although topics of discussion at the Heartland-sponsored ICCC-10 conference in Washington, D.C. on June 11 – 12, were not subject for review by the Pope. The questions were likewise ignored by the U.N. and others who believe and advocate that climate change is settled science caused by man and that the continued use of fossil fuels will result in horrendous, although unsubstantiated future calamities for Mother Earth.

1. Is the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere a net positive or net negative for plant life, animals, and human prosperity?

2. What is the cost of restrictions on energy generation and consumption imposed by the Obama administration and the United Nations?

3. It is moral to withhold affordable and reliable energy from the impoverished living in the United States and those in developing countries?

What happens if the global warming theory doesn’t fit the data? Just change the data, as was done by NASA.

Having been documented and verified to be so, global atmospheric temperature had not risen since 1998 (18 years and four months to be exact), despite human carbon dioxide emissions over that period representing 25 percent of all emissions since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution some150 years ago. So it was in early 2013 that a number of scientific and public commentators began to suggest that the phenomena was merely a “pause,” a “slowdown,” and a “hiatus.” After another analysis of the temperature data since 1998, and through “adjusting” (fudging data) the numbers, NASA reported magically that there was no plateau after all, that the warming actually continued.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Gina McCarthy remarked at a White House summit on climate change and health on Tuesday, June 23: “Climate change is not just the biggest environmental challenge of our time, it is the biggest public health challenge of our time.” Accordingly, President Obama has moved climate change to the top of his agenda, both domestically and internationally, for the rest of his term. Really!